Journalism still matters. And some of journalism’s tactics have a positive effect on thought leadership, too.

That’s the near unanimous verdict of this edition of Thought Leadership Jury, with 11 jurists returning a ‘Yes’ to our question: ‘Would thought leadership benefit from employing more tactics used in journalism?’

Jonathan Barker, Head of Thought Leadership at Natixis Investment Managers, pointed out how common it is for thought leadership’s top brass to have a journalism background, and added: “In the age of answers, we still need to ask the right questions, to the right people, at the right time.”

Emily Wearmouth, Director – Brand and Digital Studio at cybersecurity vendor Netskope, also knows journalism well from a background in PR. She said: “At its most basic, you must be able to answer the question an editor would ask: ‘Why does this matter to my audience, and why today?’.”

Meanwhile Melissa Talago, Director – Editorial and Research at SHI, said fundamentals seen in journalism should be applied “by [organisations] conducting their own primary research, speaking to customers, gathering insights from the field, and then expertly weaving all of it into directional guidance for customers”.

ServiceNow’s Thought Leadership Research head, René Stranghoner, said something close: “Unfolding a thoughtful story, revealing tensions data uncovers, and blending with a unique point of view, brings data to life in a way that resonates with executives.”

So far, so good for journalism.

 

 

Trust and openness but with nuance, for thought leadership

But others who answered ‘Yes’ to our question pointed out that being more ‘journalistic’ can be a balancing act.

Bob Mertz, Editorial Director at law firm Goodwin, brought up staples in journalism such as strong titles, ledes, deks, subheds and the inverted pyramid story structure. “But you have to calibrate your register to your brand and understand which journalistic voice is yours,” he said.

Anne Blackman, Global Marketing Director – Health Care at BCG, spoke about “using multiple perspectives as some thought leadership presents a single narrative, and competing viewpoints can be more interesting”.

Similarly, Emma Thelwell at PwC also picked up on the impartial aspects of journalism that can work in thought leadership. “Quotations from trustworthy, reputable sources that explain all sides of the story help to deliver a balanced view, giving the reader all they need to know and not a biased opinion – this gains readers’ trust. There’s merit in pointing out the downsides and challenges.”

Dolby copy chief Judson Hamilton was on the same page. “Ultimately, being truthful and straightforward will build more trust with an audience then simply trying to steer opinion from a position of expertise.”

 

 

Trust in the age of AI

We are also, as everyone wakes up remembering, living in an age of AI, which can make the trust that thought leadership depends on trickier.

Former IT industry analyst and now VP Growth Markets at Virtusa, Euan Davis, said: “Speedy analysis is paramount in our fast-moving age but with trust and verification (which is how the best journalists operate).”

Lucia Rahilly, Global Editorial Director and Deputy Publisher at McKinsey, was our one dissenting vote – not a ‘Yes’ but also not a ‘No’, a rare abstention. She told us: “It depends which tactics and which journalism. Thought leadership, regardless of format, should be fact-based, useful and present a novel point of view. Not all journalism aspires to that – and some journalism outlets, such as those that do genuine, research-intensive investigative reporting, might aspire to much more.”

One of the former journalists on this Jury, Will Sturgeon, Senior Director, Content Marketing and Comms at analyst Everest Group, was another ‘Yes’ and pointed to positives in good journalism such as curiosity and “saying what others haven’t already said” – the art of the exclusive, something thought leadership could do more.

Sturgeon added: “A lot of quality media outlets are also very protective of how AI should be used and how it shouldn’t. Clarity on those points is no bad thing for any business looking to create high-quality, trusted content that differentiates them in the market.”

And this mindfulness about AI was also seen in comments from the last of our 12 jurists, Nick Dunbar, Content Manager at construction software vendor Procore.

“Given the rising prominence of AI, it has become all too easy for some so-called ‘thought leaders’ to rehash the original thoughts of others via an LLM,” said Procore’s Dunbar. “As a result, journalistic standards for research and fact checking are more valuable than ever. Verifiable, organic thoughts will likely become the premier currency in an economy that increasingly trades in trust.”

 

 

What do you think? We’d love to know.  

Thought Leadership Jury is Collective Content’s unique way to ask our industry’s leaders to comment on the issues of the day. While not robust market research, it’s meant to provide a fresh, rapid reaction to issues facing thought leadership and content more broadly, sometimes topical, sometimes evergreen. 

And if you think that you or someone you know would be a good fit, and want to become part of our Jury pool, drop the team a line here at Collective Content.

 

 

This Jury was made up of:

Jonathan Barker, Head of Thought Leadership, Natixis

Anne Blackman, Global Marketing Director – Health Care, BCG

Euan Davis, VP Growth Markets, Virtusa

Nick Dunbar, Content Manager, Procore

Judson Hamilton, Lead Copywriter, Dolby

Bob Mertz, Editorial Director, Goodwin

Lucia Rahilly, Global Editorial Director and Deputy Publisher, McKinsey

René Stranghoner, Head of Thought Leadership Research, ServiceNow

Will Sturgeon, Senior Director, Content Marketing and Comms, Everest Group

Melissa Talago, Director – Editorial and Research, SHI

Emma Thelwell, Senior Manager, Content and Thought Leadership, PwC

Emily Wearmouth, Director – Brand and Digital Studio, Netskope